Best Build for Early Bronco

whoa!!!! hang on....

hang with me here... hypothetically
I could use a my current v8 bronco, take out the v8... swap just the BH and TC, and plug in a 200ci i6???!!! and retain most of my linkages... and I wouldn't have to tear apart my C4 to swap shafts or anything...

I thought the c4's were different, but I guess it's only the bellhousing to the engine, not BH to trans...

cause in the long run, the 200ci is much easier than the 250ci... and I can get the double roller timing chain, that makes cam timing 1000% easier.

I don't care that I use a c4, I figure it's good enough for what I want and it's purpose, besides, how often will a i6 get into overdrive in a bard and stay in overdrive pushing that barn?

this changes the game.

but then again I believe the mounting points on the 250 are more than the 200ci especially on the DS...

I think for the build with a 200ci I'll limit myself to 35 tires, the extra 50ci would be 'nice' but not necessary. unless some super big reason to use the 250 comes up, I just don't want to go modifying the internal of the engine when I know later bronco's came with the 200ci with the proper pan and oil and everything... even came with DS2's IIRC...
 
Yes, you should be able to.
Which was why I wasn't really sure why you wanted to start all over again, unless you are in a smog controlled area (I'm not, so let the good times roll)

There are two versions of the C4
Case Fill
Pan Fill

From everything I know, there are no pan fill 200 C4's -- I could be wrong.
More info that could be wrong...
All of the Case fill C4's I've seen were 157 tooth ring gears
all the Pan fill C4's were 164
FWIW, small sixes use a 136 tooth (ring gear welded to the torque converter)

Honestly I thought you wanted to stay with the SBF bellhousing because you wanted ease of changing torque converters, as you may or may not be aware of, the small six pretty much only comes in stock configurations, all high stall converters that I know of are custom pieces that cost considerably more than they SBF counterparts.

I've always been told or assumed that the main body of the C4 transmission (input and output shafts included) are exactly the same (with minor changes to the types of friction material used and vacuum modulators) between i6 and v8.
So yes, you should be able to find a 200/small six block plate, bellhousing, flex plate, and torque converter and swap it right in.

The 200 and 250 motor mount locations are exactly the same in relation from the rear of the block to the front, and from the oil pan line up to the bolt bosses.
The height differences are above the motor mount holes.

For a long time I've wanted to use one of my Mustangs as a glorified Erector set, maybe even one of each 65-66/67-68 code named Erector Stang(s). Something that I could swap motors/transmissions in as I wanted to, its just impossible when my wife keeps driving it every day. I've got plenty of motors, and transmissions, just no suitable mule(s). I think if I could put it together, it would resolve a lot of these little questions.

But maybe now that I've missed out on getting my '68 daily driver tasks done, perhaps I'll find a way to get my '67 Mustang Coupe down to my house. FWIW, I've also got a complete basket case '66 V8 Mustang Coupe shell sitting in the trees that may some day see some project time.
 
Yes that's the real beauty of the C4's from the front of the case to end of the tail housing externally they are mostly all alike. So a Bell housing from an I6 bolts up easy to a V8 or vise versa. Inside there are some differences the 250 and V8 versions can have an additional clutch disk inside the drums (good) that a C4 from a 200 I6 didn't originally have stock. As for the input shaft you don't have to take much apart to swap them after the torque converter is out the input shaft will pull straight out. Many internal parts from case fill and pan fill C4's interchange as well as some from the C5 too, there are lots of combos of parts that can be combined for different uses from stock to a full Race build. :nod:
 
gosh that really opens up so many possibilities...

I'm really excited thinking about this now, as I am hesitant with doing the oil pan and pickup...

The best part is using a 200 from a bronco will have all that ready to go... so much easier!!! and bronco guy's GIVE them away all the time.

the accessory brackets will be custom fab'd, Would love to run a serp setup, but there is no backwards water pumps.... unless I run idler between every accessory for a total of 6 idlers.

the bronco c4 has a different output shaft from cars, due to the 4x4 transfercase, and all bronco c4's were behind v8's... there was never a factory i6 with c4.... never. so I'll be using the v8 c4.

with the v8 c4, I don't think the extra band would give it issues, maybe less power loss to the tires... maybe.

with the 200ci, alum head, and a TBI setup, what kind of cam should I go for?? keep it stock?? stay around 254/254 or 204 @.050... with a stock 112 LSA... should wake it with the alum head, I want to keep 'barn door' in mind. it's not a race, and the TBI setup is programmable, but not to an extreme extent for a heavier cam.
 
I answer in terms of your question.

Sometimes you'll find that I have actually answered your question, but that's all about vehcile modification. If you change one thing, everything else changes.

Now, going back to your original 250 I6 based question..

Use reground cam on your 250 of cam type 1, 2 or 3.

Either will give you low end torque.

The other cams 4 to 8 are elective other choices, which can work. Low speed torque on a 250 doesn't suffer until you go above 215 degrees at 50. Options 4 to 8 were just put there for your help.

Its your ride, the EECIV EFI cams are perfect for a 250, only thing is , cam 3, the so called EFI 4.9 cam, has been in existence since October 1965.

If your going back to a 200 and C4, then you will have to follow the advice I gave to another Bronco 170--> member back in 2014.


Of course, I'm now looking for that post...

Weight and lack of cubic capacity and a lack of gear ratio spread will inflict a heavy toll on a Bronco with a 25% loss in capacity in comparison with a 250, but a 200 will still work nice with a CI Aluminum head and a milder cam.

It's your ride, you have experienced the low speed torque on your log head 200 in C4 and T5 form, so you'll have an idea of what cam you'd like from what you had in the Mustang. The Classic Inlines head will like less cam than your Iron direct log 2v did.
 
xctasy":35sns7zp said:
you have experienced the low speed torque on your log head 200 in C4 and T5 form, so you'll have an idea of what cam you'd like from what you had in the Mustang. The Classic Inlines head will like less cam than your Iron direct log 2v did.

ISKY Racing Cam
248: 248/248 - 194/194 - .415/.415 - 109* - 1000-3800
256: 256/256 - 202/202 - .450/.450 - 112* - 1500-4800

these cams really seems to peak my interest.... especially the 256...

So a 200ci with the 256 isky cam, alum head... would probably act more like a 264 cam due to the head flow.... that might be okay to me. as long as the idle is smooth and easy to control.

What are the opinions on a cast iron exhaust vs the headers for the bronco???? it's not like I'm saving a buck, it's the application I'm thinking of. would my application in a bronco be better suited with the stock manifold vs the headers? I'm experience is TOO much exhaust flow hurts torque. my mustang has the dual grind cam, and headers, and my torque was lower than what I expected because it was too much exhaust flow i was told later, and sure enough my research really showed the same reasoning that I didn't need the dual grind. so I'm not doing the dual grind, and with the alum head flowing so much better, would the headers hurt my torque band?
 
Two points first up, and a third. I'm pretty much on the same page with you, just some tweaking. In summary, the right 256 degree cam with some intensity in 50 thou figures would be best. The stock Ford 200 and 250 cams in those durations didn't have a lot of intensity

Point One: I keep going back to similar combinations I've driven that worked. I think any consideration on peak at lash valve lift is irrelevant, its the 30 thou durations when both valves are open, and the 50 thou durations that make the cam do its work.

You won't go wrong with 256 duration at lash. The kicker is that from what I noted when I drove the 1985 Commodore EI was that even with a 270 degree cam with 200 degrees lift a 50 thou , there was an insane amonut of off idle torque, and I wouldn't be automatically going back very much on peak at lash duration to 256, even on a 3.3 /200 cube engine with a big head.


I've not driven a 268 degree 4.9 F150 EFI, but the 272 degree cam 4.1 EFI Falcon, 270 degree 3.3 EFI Holden 3.3 are classic 1980's engines that had wilder than normal single pattern cams, better induction and exhaust, and didn't loose a jot of low end torque. Don't be concerned that the EFI versions showed higher engine speeds at peak torque...the engine torque figures never showed you just how much low end, off idle torque they had in comparisons with the low tier non EFI engines.

In 1985, the GM Chevrolet Power Train engineers from Milbrook came to Australia to test there US T5 and Cal Pack TPi engines and the Aussie export PBR brakes and BTR G52 axle for F-cars. They were really impressed wit the little 1985 3.3 Holden engine.

http://holden.itgo.com/vk.html
"The Bosch fuel injection wasn't the only new change as internal changes were made with a high lift camshaft, larger inlet valves and better flow through head. Stainless steel extractors were added to this to produce the very flexible torquey and powerful six. "

Stock 142 hp, 196 lb-ft

"3.3 Efi Six Cylinder
Bore & stroke : 92.1mm x 82.5
Cubic capacity : 3298 cc
Power : 106 kW @ 4400
Torque : 266 Nm @ 3200
Electronic ignition
Compression ratio : 8.8:1 "

Second Point: I'm on the same page with dual pattern cams.

The best exhaust manifold is the one that amplifies low speed torque without hurting power. Holden in there 3.3's used a single pattern cam, and a very good exhaust.


The stock 1981 to 1983 B and X code items is best. If you can get one, and it fits, it'll do the low end torque no harm, without huirting the power. It should package into the Bronco.

http://vid1215.photobucket.com/albums/c ... I_6819.mp4


All it needs is a good outlet

Dscn0607.jpg


The factory Holden 3.3 ran a low restriction tube header too.





And that goes back in a circular path to the stock Electronic Injection cam profile I liked

Inlet. 15/75 .420thou lift. Duration 270
Exhaust. 60/30 .440thou lift. Duration 270

Basically you could go as aggressive as a single pattern EFI 3.3 Holden cam the induction half of the Crow 35666, with 204 duration 50 thou lift figures. http://www.crowcams.com.au/FindaProduct ... 6_CAM.aspx


Third point. Are you going the same kind of TBi injection you used to run , or just 4-bbl?

If you are, our Over head cam 1988-1991 CFI 3.2 and 3.9 Falcons ran a pretty aggressive cam #222002 with 194 50 thou lift figures from a 1.8:1 lifter ratio, and just 242 intake and 240 exhaust duration, but a ballistic 470 and 454 thou lift.

Notice that the peak duration was as low as the first 144/170 cams, but its 50 thou figures were better than the 268and 272 cams in the 80's EFI Fords.

See http://www.crowcams.com.au/Portals/0/Ca ... -OHC-6.pdf
 
Point 1:
the gist I got was, less duration, bigger ramp, more lift....
the 256 has that, being a 202 @.050 with a .450 lift...

But I'm also sensing you like the 248 with the 194@.050 and .415 lift (using stock rockers) but I feel you think I should go higher ratio for more lift on this cam.. what about the 109 LSA, that's more aggressive than my 264/274 110 .450 cam LSA, or does the fact that it's less duration (248 vs 264) counter and provide less aggressiveness. I want vacuum, and the 109 LSA I'm told won't have good vacuum. so I was concluding the 256 with 112 LSA will have great vacuum.

as it's going to be an Auto, vacuum is very important to me for smoothness, the little less bottom end will help much more, also have to account for the tq converter, even though I know it won't lock up where I'm 'crawling' but with lower dear and mostly dirt roads and river bed crossings,

Point 2:
so I'm thinking either a cast iron manifold with a good breathing 2.25inch pipe, or a header with 1.5-1.75 exhaust... but from what I think you're saying is go with a header and no more than a 2inch pipe...

Point 3:
yes, absolutely, except I'm going with a ECM that I will be able to tweak on my own, instead of ask them for a better fuel table, I want to change it myself, possibly even build it. but I like their's cause it runs best on 'stockish' engines, they aren't into the whole big HP numbers it's more a reliable setup and over the counter replacement. changes will be a in-tank gas pump and ECM, but same basic setup.

Point 4:
my point in building, I need everything stupid easy available... I want to 'pick off a shelf' really. not 're-invent' the i6... which I feel like I did with the mustang, in all honesty, I have a love/hate relationship with it... but the love came with the i6 and it's performance, the hate was it was the wrong vehicle for me and what I wanted it to be.

This vehicle, is a toy, a eye candy engine that I love, and I want to take it everywhere. so a 4x4 bronco will be a perfect platform. but I want the engine to match what I would like to do with the truck. Like tow a max of 3,000 lbs trailer (probably 1500 lbs most cases) for camping trips, kayaks, vacation... have a dog in the back ect... the HP will be used, it's more of a street vehicle when finished, but I want it to go everywhere I do.

so no race, just reliable strength... so for theory sake, if I bought from CI site, what would be best for my bronco.
 
Sounds like you've got it all covered!

Based on what you've said, 256 on a 112 lobe and 202 lift at 50 thou, and 1.5 rockers, and a simple, good exhaust....they all sound good!

My job is done, I think you've got it all worked out.

Oh yeah, for your now 200 Bronco, What carb/induction?
 
so what exhaust would you do X?
the cast iron or header?

it's the TBI induction... 2bbl gm tbi... with obd1 IIRC.

DS2 with custom curve for cam
 
okay, I've been thinking about the vehicle... and now I'm asking again about the power...

theoretically...

the alum head on a 200ci with a c4... with a 248/248194@.050 .415 lift and 112 LSA... with 2bbl gm TBI setup (probably 400cfm range with a plate between TBI and intake for ~320cfm) running 9.2 SCR, cam with 4* advance (built into cam IIRC)

What's the power I should expect?
is it 180hp to 200hp with 200tq to 240tq?
or more???

reason for question... I'm thinking SC and I don't know why except for a 225hp 300tq range... or close to the same as my 89-92 5.0 HO (225h 300t)
 
Any at lash duration reduction from the stock Ford 256 cam will hurt your power without helping low end torque.

145 HP and 200 lb-ft are realistic with that cam. Going up to 270 degrees at lash will add power without loosing any torque.


To get 180/200, you need 264-272 duration.


You WON'T get 240 lb-ft from a 3.3 engine unless you loose a certian amount of off idle to 3500 rpm low end torque. You can't get 1.2 lb-ft per cube without some loss of low speed torque. Our 4 valve per cylinder, variable valve timing 4.0 DOHC Falcon engines with variable BBR intakes make 1.2 lb-ft per cube on 95 octane fuel at 9.7:1 compression. You WONT do that with a Classic Inlines head unless you tailor the cam to a specific rpm range.

The best comparison is Mraley's yellow 4-bbl Classic Inlines Mustang,

http://classicinlines.com/Dyno2.asp



that based on a nominal 26% drive train loss is was 266 hp at the flywheel in one dyno run, and probably about 287 lb-ft. That's 1.42 lb-ft per cube. To get that, he had to loose a little at the bottom to gain at the top. rw figures 211--->266 hp, 227.5-->287 lb-ft


See http://forums.justcommodores.com.au/par ... odore.html

and Some kiwis put two of them on

http://oldschool.co.nz/2011/forum/index ... h-an-sc14/


Adding a supercharger, even a little 85 cubic inch number, with the right pulleys, will instantly put 30% on that, to 190 and 260 ft-lbs. To equal a 5.0HO or GT40p, you have to get aggressive with at lash duration.

If you get a cam specialist to run the data, you'll get V8 stomping, Broncitus style SC performance.




My mates 3.8 GM 3800 VN Commodore was 175 hp stock, and 218 lb-ft, and he replaced the A/C with a 1.4 liter Ogura supercharger, and got 228 hp and 283 lb-ft from a Castlemain Rod shop kit. Just turn on the A/C, and dust everything. Stock, his T5 Commodore did 16 seconds flat. With the supercharger, 14.8 seconds. Best 1500 dollars he ever spent.
 
So X,

If i wanted a 'bronco' build, which is torque and enough power for a 'medium-heavy' bronco with trailer, what is the power range I should look for?? I want to travel up to 70mph with lots of room on the pedal to keep going if needed (don't want to 100% the engine just to 'be' at speed, but want the engine to have enough power at that speed)

I know the lower CFM from the TBI will help on bottom end and pedal response... which is what I want. but top end I want more without loosing any bottom end, in fact I want to increase the bottom, and get more top for more efficiency...

I'm now really thinking the 258 cam with .450 lift and 112 LSA would be better, from my experience the 264/274 took away from the bottom gain, and gave it to the top, and the alum head is a huge improvement above the stock head so it's 'EASY' to over cam the alum head.

thinking realisticly, I don't think I want a SC, it would need more 'cooling' on a already 'hot' rig... slow trails in AZ with AC (dry 110-120*F summer days, or 43.3-48.8*c) would not be friendly to a SC.. especially if I enlarge the AC'd area...

I guess I'm not really running the v8 up to 4k for to use all 225hp, probably closer to 2.5-3k if really needing it, and the Torque Converter helps multiply the torque at the wheels..
 
Only issue I have is one I discussed a while back, an 200 engine with a 3 speed C4 with 22mph/1000 rpm won't allow proper gearing spread, a snap down into 2nd will still not be low and fierce enough. The road load with those tires will be very high. A 250 would take it easily, a 200 will be struggling.

The guys at Schneider have used low load stress cams, lacking intensity but with quite a lot more duration than Clay Smith cams. A CS cam is better in manual situations, smaller 200 cube automatics suffer when the cam has Clay Smith style intensity. Clay Smith are performance cams in every sense, a Schneider cam is more automatic focused, and the split lobe design has been worked to a very high degree.

In a no loss of low end torque situation, you need to work on reduced intensity, lobe center and degreeing it in to maximise torque.


If its automatic, what you can do is find someone to grind a non split lobe cam with minimum duration when "both valves are 30 thou off the seat", equal to the factory cam. Then you'll never have a low rpm hole. This trick was used in automatic Pinto 2000 cc engines, where the ports were too big, and the stock cam had too much 50 thou duration for low end torque. Reduced cam intensity at 30 and 50 thou lift, but still higher duration at lash. This is a low load stress cam.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26804743/How- ... vid-Vizard

*Source:How to Modify Ford SOHC Engines (Pinto/Cortina/Capri/Sierra 1.3- 2.0 litre 1970 to 1982) by David Vizard, published 1984 by Fountain Press.

Page 59-60, CHAPTER THREE Cam Drives, Cam & Valve Trains
ISBN 0 86343 9856, Dewy Decimal No 629.2504 Viz

The lack of gearing spread with a C4, and comparative lack of cubes for the GVW, will require an EI 3.3 Commodore, 4.1 X-flow EFI Fairmont /240-300 Big Six F-truck style cam, both have big duration, but moderate 50 thou lift, and you can customise the cam to find a minimum duration when both valves are at 30 thou off the seat.

Any cam under 270 degrees is a waste on an I6. You can fill out the bottom end torque curve to mask the gearing and low weight to torque figures. If your using a Bronco the way you describe, you need to look at what you are missing out on gearing and capacity wise. You are screwed with the 3 ratios and lack of spaced to adapt a C4+gear-vendors or AOD or 5R55 trans.

Look at, say, a 1997-2001 3800 pound 3.73:1 axle 5 speed 4.0SOHC Explorer, which was faster and quicker than the 3.27 axle 4-speed auto 5.0 Explorer, (16,7 sec 1/4 mile verses a Stock XLT 5.0's 16.9 sec) and attempt to copy its 200 hp power peak and 250 lb-ft load carrying ability.

Scaled down to 3.3 liters, you want a 3135 pound truck with 165 hp and 206 lb-ft, and gearing will be more of a critical loss. 5 ratios is a minimum for towing and open road, 3 speed plus GV OD would work, or accept compromise C4 open road gearing of more than 3800 rpm at 65 mph so that it'll have a more sprightly offroad gearing. In other words, gear it like a 3.73:1, 29" 265/70 16 wheel Explorer that has lost its 1:1 4TH and 0.70:1 top, and it will instead have 1st, 2nd and 3rd like the Explorers.

It had
16 mph/1000 rpm in 3rd (4063 at 65 mph)
23.6 mph/1000 rpm in 4th (2750 rpm at 65)
33.7 mph/1000 rpm in 5th (1929 rpm at 65 mph)

Find axle ratios with the tires you like that gives you 17 mph /1000 rpm, or 3800 rpm at 65 mph. Then you'll have all the towing and offroad flogging and slogging power you need.


Good luck. Sounds like your onto a sweet spot
 
I'm going back and forth but have been coming to the reality that the 200ci or the 250ci just isn't proper for the use I want to put it to...
the stress the engine will be under with an 'extended' bronco PLUS trailer, seems to be too much for the small block engines. they aren't the proper setup.
I'm pondering that the 300ci would be better suited for the build... reasons...


here's what I'm really thinking... all out on the table
The small six HP/TQ power output lacks for want I want the bronco to 'be'... more of a family 'expedition' type vehicle...
Here's an idea that has been floating in my head for couple months... a 4 door half cab but with a removable wagon extension... was hoping there was a better option out there... but not imo.
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/t ... ild/page24

the 200ci is fun IMO, but still under powered... even if I hop it up with a $2k alum head from classicinline.com
while having the 200ci and alum head is more of a personal dream, I'm really seeing that I might bite more than I can chew, by going too small of an engine. especially if I modify the length of the bronco in any way and tow a trailer.
a good point is - mental and mechanical stress... it must be considered and expected.

the 200ci OR 250ci would be under alot of mechanical stress... even if it has enough power, making that bigger power is asking for larger stress factors on a smaller engine... I get that. I respect the logic and am really re-thinking the engine choice all together...

so here's a new consideration, use the big i6 300 , great torque and much easier to improve the power in. While it's not a cookie v8, it can produce v8 like power with little mod.
this Big Six could easily run a longer (heavier) bronco and trailer with lot less stress than the smaller i6.

Even though it's not my 'dream' it's more sound logic that I admit would be better in the long run. I still get an i6, removable intake (even swap to efi) and even better 90's parts from late model broncos... more research required
classicbronco's forum most members agree a bronco is best around the +250hp range, and as much torque I can get, my 75 gives 225hp300tq @ 4k-rpm. I'm never at 4k-rpm, but if I need it, it's there... and the engine will have less stress.
what is everyone's opinion on the change of engine/body/weight... would the 300ci i6 do what I want it to with reliability. certainly better than the 200 or 250... just not as cool.
 
You want to use it like a truck. Use a truck motor.
Big sixes are cool. Bite your tongue.
Half cab 4x4 sounds like it would be a lot of fun.

I still kick myself for not acting sooner on the $500 bronco basket case that sold around here last summer.
 
Although this all seams circular, the truth is a 5 speed 3.3 truck in about 3200 pounds would work. The EB Bronco won't fit 5 speed gearbox easily, but you could do it. The 5 speed trans is a valid solution, but its all gotten away because that would require too many changes.

An Explorer chassis, with its insane ability to torque split with a 5 speed automatic, is a great tow vehicle, despite what lawsuits against Ford, Firestone and Explorers did. A common IRS transplant or later platform makes it even better, although then its a total crutch to use a 3.3, and Explorer.

Soooo...

It looks like you've gotta follow your knowledge, and to heck with it if the small I6 don't figure.

Its keep the Windsor 5.0, or a 300 six swap would be nice....if our guy Ranger_gone_straight last seen here Sat Jul 06, 2013

viewtopic.php?t=54678

who did the Ranger/300 swap had done it with an Early Bronco, wow!
 
X

Weight might be a heck lot more... I'm figuring a 5k lbs when finished, and towing a 2k lbs trailer...

the 5 speed would be nice, but I'm going auto.. that torque converter is going to work for me... but it opens some options for the trans, like a eAOD or at least the AOD... gearing can change maybe... but still liking the C4.


CoupeBoy: exactly... it's a 'truck' think of a 4 door halfcab...look here.... with full wagon addon if wanted.
 
here are some pictures of what I am really thinking of tackling... and hence the bigger engine.
 

Attachments

  • final fit 001.JPG
    final fit 001.JPG
    180.3 KB · Views: 127
  • seats 002.JPG
    seats 002.JPG
    39 KB · Views: 126
  • 004.JPG
    004.JPG
    172 KB · Views: 126
  • Top going on 006.JPG
    Top going on 006.JPG
    202.8 KB · Views: 126
  • Top going on 004.JPG
    Top going on 004.JPG
    168.2 KB · Views: 126
  • Slider adjustment 005.JPG
    Slider adjustment 005.JPG
    190.7 KB · Views: 126
  • Doors and fenders going on 001.JPG
    Doors and fenders going on 001.JPG
    209 KB · Views: 126
  • Doors and fenders going on 007.JPG
    Doors and fenders going on 007.JPG
    198.8 KB · Views: 126
Back
Top